Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 46791 

processed raspberries pay assessments 

under the Order. 

Regarding alternatives, one option to 

the proposed action would be to 

maintain the status quo and not 

prescribe late payment and interest 

charges for past due assessments. 

However, the Council determined that 

implementing such charges will help 

facilitate program administration by 

encouraging entities to pay their 

assessments in a timely manner. The 

Council reviewed rates of late payment 

and interest charges prescribed in other 

research and promotion programs and 

concluded that a 10 percent late 

payment charge and interest at a rate of 

1 percent per month on the outstanding 

balance would be appropriate. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the information collection 

and recordkeeping requirements that are 

imposed by the Order have been 

approved under OMB control number 

0581–0093. This rule results in no 

change to the information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements previously 

approved and imposes no additional 

reporting and recordkeeping burden on 

domestic producers, first handlers, and 

importers of processed raspberries. 

As with all Federal promotion 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

Regarding outreach efforts, the 

Council met on January 15, 2014, and 

unanimously made its recommendation. 

All of the Council’s meetings, including 

meetings held via teleconference, are 

open to the public and interested 

persons are invited to participate and 

express their views. 

As previously mentioned, a proposed 

rule concerning this action was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 12, 2014 (79 FR 67103). The 

proposal was made available through 

the Internet by USDA and the Office of 

the Federal Register. A 30-day comment 

period ending December 12, 2014 was 

provided to allow interested persons to 

submit comments. No comments were 

received. One change was made to 

section 1208.520(2) for clarification 

purposes, the addition of the word 

‘‘charge’’ after the words ‘‘late 

payment’’. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matters presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Council and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, is 

consistent with and will effectuate the 

purposes of the 1996 Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1208 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Raspberry promotion, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 1208 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 1208—PROCESSED 

RASPBERRY PROMOTION, 

RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION 

ORDER 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1208 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425; 7 U.S.C. 

7401. 

■ 2. Section 1208.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1208.3 Crop year. 

Crop year means the 12-month period 

from October 1 through September 30 or 

such other period approved by the 

Secretary. 

■ 3. Section 1208.7 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1208.7 Fiscal period. 

Fiscal period means the 12-month 

period from October 1 through 

September 30 or such other period as 

approved by the Secretary. 

■ 4. Section 1208.78 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1208.78 OMB control numbers. 

The control number assigned to the 

information collection requirements by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, is 

OMB control number 0505–0001, and 

OMB control number 0581–0093. 

■ 5. Section 1208.108 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1208.108 OMB control number. 

The control number assigned to the 

information collection requirement in 

this subpart by the Office of 

Management and Budget pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35, is OMB control 

number 0581–0093. 

■ 6. Add Subpart C, consisting of 

§ 1208.520, to read as follows: 

Subpart C—Provisions Implementing 

the Processed Raspberry Promotion, 

Research, and Information Order 

§ 1208.520 Late payment and interest 

charges for past due assessments. 

(a) A late payment charge shall be 

imposed on any handler or importer 

who fails to make timely remittance to 

the Council of the total assessments for 

which such handler or importer is 

liable. The late payment will be 

imposed on any assessments not 

received within 30 calendar days of the 

date they are due. This one-time late 

payment charge shall be 10 percent of 

the assessments due before interest 

charges have accrued. 

(b) In addition to the late payment 

charge, 1 percent per month interest on 

the outstanding balance, including any 

late payment charge and accrued 

interest, will be added to any accounts 

for which payment has not been 

received by the Council within 30 

calendar days after the date the 

assessments are due. Such interest will 

continue to accrue monthly until the 

outstanding balance is paid to the 

Council. 

Dated: August 3, 2015. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19325 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 65 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–1000; Amdt. No. 65– 

56A] 

RIN 2120–AK40 

Elimination of the Air Traffic Control 

Tower Operator Certificate for 

Controllers Who Hold a Federal 

Aviation Administration Credential 

With a Tower Rating 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; disposition of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: On December 16, 2014, the 

FAA published a final rule with a 

request for comments that eliminated 

the requirement for an air traffic control 

tower operator to hold a control tower 

operator certificate if the individual also 

holds a Federal Aviation Administration 

Credential with a tower rating (FAA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

46792 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Credential). This action addresses the 

public comment the FAA received. 

DATES: The final rule effective date 

remains February 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket. The docket may 

also be accessed at the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Michele Cappelle, Air 

Traffic Safety Oversight Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–5205; email Michele.cappelle@

faa.gov 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Neal O’Hara, Attorney, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations 

Division, AGC–240, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3073; email 

neal.o’hara@faa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 16, 2014, the FAA 

published a final rule that eliminated 

the requirement for an air traffic control 

tower operator to hold a control tower 

operator (CTO) certificate if the 

individual also holds an FAA Credential 

(79 FR 74607). The requirement to hold 

both the CTO certificate and the FAA 

Credential was redundant since the 

underlying requirements for the FAA 

Credential encompass those of the CTO 

certificate. The action will reduce the 

FAA’s burden of administering 

redundant programs for those 

individuals who hold an FAA 

Credential. 

Discussion of Comments 

The FAA received one comment from 

the National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association—AFL–CIO (NATCA). 

NATCA had several concerns with the 

rule. 

NATCA opposes the elimination of 

the CTO certificate. NATCA believes 

that if the FAA eliminates the 

requirement for the CTO certificate, 

important training requirements risk 

elimination, which will result in a 

significant lack of appropriate oversight 

and create disparities between FAA and 

non-FAA tower Air Traffic Control 

Specialists. 

The FAA notes the training 

requirements for air traffic controllers 

have not changed because of this 

rulemaking. All FAA air traffic 

controllers must adhere to the 

requirements in FAA Order JO 3120.4, 

Air Traffic Technical Training. The final 

rule simply eliminated duplicative 

programs that only applied to a portion 

of the FAA controller workforce. Before 

February 17, 2015 (the effective date of 

the final rule), air traffic controllers 

assigned to control towers were required 

to possess a CTO certificate issued in 

accordance with 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 65, subpart B. 

CTO certificates were only required for 

air traffic controllers working in a 

control tower; no such requirement 

existed for air traffic controllers 

assigned to approach control or en-route 

air traffic control facilities. In addition, 

once a CTO certificate was issued, it 

remained valid with no recurrent or 

refresher training requirements to 

ensure the holder still possessed the 

skills demonstrated at the time the CTO 

certificate was awarded. 

When the FAA Credentialing program 

was introduced in 2006, it included all 

FAA controllers, not just tower 

controllers as in the CTO program. In 

addition, the emphasis was shifted to 

ensuring safety-related personnel 

retained the skills necessary to perform 

their responsibilities. Under the FAA 

Credentialing program, the individual 

must: (1) Complete all required training 

in accordance with FAA standards; (2) 

undergo required certification; and (3) 

successfully complete the initial skills 

evaluation to be issued an FAA 

Credential with an appropriate rating. 

Once issued, the rating associated with 

the FAA Credential is valid for 2 years, 

after which the individual undergoes 

another skills evaluation similar to the 

one used for the initial certification. The 

biennial skills evaluation is required for 

all air traffic controllers, regardless of 

their assignment to a tower, approach 

control, or en-route air traffic control 

facility. 

NATCA is also concerned that the 

knowledge, skill, and experience 

requirements in part 65 for CTO 

certificate holders have not been 

properly incorporated into FAA Orders 

and that no analysis was performed. 

During the rulemaking process, the 

FAA reviewed part 65, subpart B, and 

made appropriate changes to FAA Order 

8000.90 upon issuance of the final rule. 

As noted in FAA Order 8000.90, the 

FAA Credentialing program 

incorporates the current training, 

certification, and qualification 

requirements that form the basis from 

which the Air Traffic Safety Oversight 

Service issues, amends, withdraws, and 

removes FAA Credentials. The Air 

Traffic Organization must adhere to the 

requirements in FAA Orders regarding 

the training, proficiency, and 

certification of personnel. These orders 

include FAA Order JO 3120.4, Air 

Traffic Technical Training and FAA 

Order JO 3000.57, Air Traffic 

Organization Technical Operations 

Training and Personnel Certification 

Programs. The Air Traffic Organization 

also must ensure that changes to FAA 

Orders JO 3120.4 and JO 3000.57 or 

other directives related to training, 

proficiency, and certification, are 

submitted for Air Traffic Safety 

Oversight Office (AOV) review and 

acceptance. 

NATCA states that if ‘‘the 

requirements are eliminated for FAA 

credentialed Air Traffic Control 

Specialists, they need to be retained in 

another provision of Regulation or 

Statute to ensure proper oversight.’’ 

NATCA believes FAA Orders may be 

changed at-will and are not subject to 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA). NATCA states there is no check 

and balance to oversee the FAA’s 

changes to these critical matters that are 

currently covered by regulation and 

subject to oversight. 

FAA Orders serve as the primary 

means within the FAA to issue, 

establish, and describe agency policies, 

organization, responsibilities, methods, 

and procedures governing FAA 

employees. FAA Order 1320.1 contains 

the requirements to issue Orders. Also, 

in 1997, the National Civil Aviation 

Review Commission (NCARC) 

recommended that the air traffic service 

provider in FAA be subject to the safety 

policies of a separate part of the FAA to 

provide independent safety oversight. In 

addition, in 2001, the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted 

an amendment requiring states to 

implement formal safety management 

procedures for their air traffic services 

systems. 

FAA Order 1100.161 specifies the 

manner by which AOV, within the 

Office of the Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety (AVS), will oversee the 

Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and 

other organizations within the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) 

regarding safety management of the air 

traffic system. AOV’s safety oversight 

responsibilities remain the same 

whether certain Air Traffic requirements 

are contained in 14 CFR or in FAA 

Orders. Thus, there is no erosion of 

oversight of these important training 

and certification requirements. 

NATCA notes that military and 

Department of Defense civilian 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 46793 

controllers, as well as controllers 

working in Federal Contract Towers, are 

issued CTO certificates. NATCA states 

that these air traffic controllers, as well 

FAA air traffic controllers, regularly 

transfer between these employers. 

NATCA is concerned these transfers 

will be stifled or new bureaucracies will 

need to be created to ensure equivalent 

qualifications before transfer. 

The underlying requirements for the 

FAA Credential encompass those of the 

CTO certificate. In addition, the FAA 

Credential includes the biennial skills 

evaluation discussed previously. 

Therefore, the FAA does not expect 

movement between employers to be 

stifled. 

NATCA states that the FAA’s final 

rule does not address how the FAA will 

maintain CTO certificates for incumbent 

employees for whom they will not be 

eliminated. 

The procedures for current CTO 

certificate holders have not changed. 

Therefore, no additional changes were 

needed to 14 CFR part 65. 

NATCA states that FAA should have 

collaborated with them on the 

development of any changes to the CTO 

certification process. 

The FAA followed the procedures and 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act as well as those 

prescribed by FAA Order 1320.1. 

Finally, NATCA requested that the 

FAA withdraw the rule and include 

FAA Credential holders in 14 CFR part 

65. NATCA notes that under such an 

amendment, all certified controllers, 

whether holding a CTO certificate or an 

FAA Credential would be subject to the 

same rules, any subsequent rule changes 

would be subject to due process because 

they would require amendments to 14 

CFR, and it would eliminate redundant 

processes. 

The FAA followed the requirements 

in the Administrative Procedure Act 

and FAA Order 1320.1. Because FAA 

Orders serve as the primary means 

within the FAA to issue, establish, and 

describe agency policies, organization, 

responsibilities, methods, and 

procedures for FAA employees, the 

FAA has determined its actions are 

appropriate and have eliminated 

redundant processes. 

Conclusion 

After consideration of the comment 

submitted in response to the final rule, 

the FAA has determined that no 

revisions to the rule are warranted. 

Issued in Washington, DC on July 27, 2015. 

Anthony S. Ferrante, 

Director, Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19278 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

19 CFR Part 351 

RIN 0625–AB04 

[Docket No.: 150731663–5663–01] 

Dates of Application of Amendments 

to the Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Laws Made by the Trade 

Preferences Extension Act of 2015 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Interpretive Rule; Notice of 

Determination. 

SUMMARY: On June 29, 2015, President 

Obama signed into law the Trade 

Preferences Extension Act of 2015. The 

Act provides a number of amendments 

to the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) and 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) laws but 

does not specify dates of application for 

those amendments. This notice of 

determination establishes a date of 

application for each statutory revision 

pertaining to the Department of 

Commerce and provides notice thereof 

to all interested parties to AD and CVD 

proceedings and to the public. 

DATES: The date of application of this 

interepretive rule is August 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Heilferty, Deputy Chief Counsel 

for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20230, 202–482–0082. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Trade Preferences Extension Act 

of 2015, Public Law 114–27 (the ‘‘Act’’) 

provides five amendments to the AD 

and CVD laws: (1) Section 502 amends 

Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 

U.S.C. 1677e, to modify the provisions 

addressing the selection and 

corroboration of certain information that 

may be used as facts otherwise available 

with an adverse inference in an AD or 

CVD proceeding; (2) Section 503 

amends Section 771(7) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677(7), to modify the 

definition of ‘‘material injury’’ in AD 

and CVD proceedings; (3) Section 504 

amends Section 771(15) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677(15), and Section 

773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 

1677b, to modify the definition of 

‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ and the 

provisions governing the treatment of a 

‘‘particular market situation’’ in AD 

proceedings; (4) Section 505 amends 

Section 773(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2), to modify 

the treatment of distorted prices or costs 

in AD proceedings; and (5) Section 506 

amends Section 782(a) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1677m(a), to modify 

the provision regarding accepting 

voluntary respondents in AD and CVD 

proceedings. 

The Act does not contain dates of 

application for any of these 

amendments. As explained below, it 

would be impracticable for the 

Department to apply at least one of the 

amendments, Section 505, immediately, 

and extremely difficult to apply the 

others immediately. Accordingly, the 

Department is establishing dates of 

application for each section, except for 

Section 503 (which relates to 

determinations of material injury by the 

U.S. International Trade Commission). 

As an initial matter, we are cognizant 

of the Supreme Court’s ruling in 

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 

244 (1994), that, absent clear 

Congressional intent that a statute be 

applied retroactively, a statute may not 

attach new legal consequences to events 

completed before its enactment. 

Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280; see also, 

AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701 

(2009). In determining whether the 

Landgraf prohibition has been breached, 

important considerations are whether 

the new law takes away or impairs 

vested rights or creates new obligations, 

imposes a new duty, or attaches a new 

disability in respect to transactions or 

considerations already past. Landgraf, 

511 U.S. at 269. Another important 

consideration is whether the prior 

provision was reasonably relied upon, 

so that application of the new provision 

would be manifestly unfair. INS v. St. 

Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). 

In considering whether application of 

the amended statutes to merchandise 

entered into the United States before the 

passage of the Act would disturb vested 

rights, create new obligations or upset a 

reasonable reliance, our starting point is 

the holding of the Supreme Court in 

Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 

493 (1904), that ‘‘no individual has a 

vested right to trade with foreign 

nations. . . .’’ and that importing 

merchandise is not a fundamental right 

that is protected by other constitutional 

privileges such as due process. See also 

NEC Corp. v. United States, 151 F.3d 

1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). More 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES